Anti-Meth Bill Inserted Into Patriot Act

Instapundit has a post on the anti-meth bill that conferees inserted into the Patriot Act compromise legislation agreed upon last week. The meth bill restricts the number of over-the-counter cold pills you can buy. Glenn is 100% correct when he writes:

....the problem with this is that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Putting it in the Patriot Act just reinforces my fears -- present since the beginning -- that this had more to do with finding an excuse to enact bureaucratic wishlists into law than with protecting us from terrorism....this is a dumb idea, it undercuts the entire rationale for the Patriot Act, and it's a reason to be suspicious of the whole renewal enterprise.

Glenn also notes Diane Feinstein is behind the bill. I'm not surprised. She's has as little in common with true Democrats as Joe Lieberman.

As TChris wrote here, the meth crisis is a myth. The only effect this bill will have on those who cook meth is to cause them to steal the pills instead of buy them. Plus, here's who will get busted under the cold pill laws - convenience store clerks, probably those that have difficulty understanding English, who thought the undercover cop was talking about a barbecue when he mentioned a "cook."

We need to be vigilant about keeping terror laws and drug laws separate, except in such instances where the two clearly are linked. We already have laws that penalize terrorism and laws that penalize illicit drug activity. There is no need to combine them.

It is a normal legislative technique to attach amendments to a bill that is quite likely to pass.

The Patriot Act was nothing but a laundry list of police state bullsh*t that our more totalitarian congresspersons had been trying to sneak in for years. When does it end? Maybe when the Republicans stop their charming practice of five-minute debates for 27,000 page bills held at 4:13 AM.

Not only do cold pills go into making meth, but so does ether (starting fluid, matches (red phosphorous), colemans fuel (sorry campers, if you buy your camping supplies, we regret to inform you that in order to protect you from turrusts, we limit you to one (1) bottle of fuel), muriatic acid, red devil lye, the list goes on...
Where does it stop?
And just why the he!! is the Orwellian Act, ostensibly used to fight turrusts, being used to buttress the ever-failing drug war?
Once the state gains control of a liberty, they never, ever, give it back.
So when your family of five all come down with colds, you can thank your elected officials when the G-Men kick down your door and shoot you.

I totally agree with johnny and scarshapedstar in regards to the patriot act. however, while i think that feinstein is incredibly wrong 99 percent of the time, and she is wrong here, you have to understand where she is coming from.
meth is killing white people. dont you get it? this is worse than crack!
even tommy promking will get "meth'd up" and kill his parents. they even have a problem with meth in kansas. KANSAS!
Sure, California may have had a meth problem for 40 years. So it is a good thing that Feinstein has finally done something besides stand next to Barbara Boxer. And yes, it is a good thing that the police are now empowered to investigate "any suspicious odor" because whether it is a meth lab or fifteen drunk frat boys having a farting contest, this is America and since when can you just do what you want in America?
i support big brother, i mean, big sister feinstein's integrity. she has to sneak a badly written law onto an affront to democracy and freedom to protect your children from themselves.
how dare you question her?

It appears that Section 602 of the PA makes it illegal to protest the president or any other official under the SS's protection, and sometimes whether the SS is present or not.
To lawyers on the site, what is your interpretation of 602 (and 603)?
I'd provide links but all I could find were lists of 'clarifications' and 'substitutions of language' which involved hunting back and forth with the original language to these 'minor changes'.
I did the work, but I don't expect others to take my word for the conclusions.

Sec. 602. Interference with National Special Security Events.
Section 602 of the conference report is a new section. 18 U.S.C. § 1752 authorizes the Secret
Service to charge individuals who breach established security perimeters or engage in other
disruptive or potentially dangerous conduct at National Special Security Events (NSSEs) if a
Secret Service protectee is attending the designated event. Section 602 of the conference report
expands 18 U.S.C. § 1752 to criminalize such security breaches at NSSEs that occur when the
Secret Service protectee is not in attendance. Additionally, it doubles the statutory penalties
(from 6 months to 1 year) for violations of § 1752, to make the penalty consistent with the
prescribed penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 3056(d) (interference with Secret Service law enforcement
personnel generally). The conference report makes punishable by up to 10 years the thwarting of
security procedures by individuals in possession of dangerous or deadly weapons.
Sec. 603. False Credentials to National Special Security Events.
Section 603 of the conference report is a new section. This section amends 18 U.S.C. § 1028 to
make it a Federal crime to knowingly produce, possess, or transfer a false identification
document that could be used to gain unlawful and unauthorized access to any restricted area of a
building or grounds in conjunction with a NSSE. Such actions were a problem during the 2002
Winter Olympics, and the conference report will allow for Federal prosecution against such
criminal violations at future NSSEs.

The above text, along with descriptions of other sections, can be found here
Disruptive is a bit broad in this context.
Just what constitutes disruptive?
I guess from the Secret Service protectee's point of view someone wearing a shirt that says something derogatory about the Secret Service protectee could be considered disruptive.